UKVoIPTalk.com

Ivor Jones wrote:[color=blue]
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:461658e2.0@entanet
>
> [snip]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> Cite, please? Please provide some evidence rather than
>>>> just "everybody knows" or similar.
>>>>
>>>> Here's mine: [url]http://foldoc.org/?query=newsgroup[/url]
>>> How about [url]http://www.usenet.org.uk/[/url]
>>>
>>> I don't see the word "forum" there at all. I do see the
>>> word "newsgroup" quite extensively though.[/color]
>> It doesn't say anything about the use of the word forum
>> to describe newsgroups being banned?[/color]
>
> It doesn't mention the word forum *at all*.
>[color=green]
>> I am not saying they cannot be described as newsgroups,
>> that would be foolish. I am saying that the word forum
>> would also correctly describe them.[/color]
>
> But not on Usenet.
>
> Or someone would have done so by now, given the time Usenet has existed.[/color]

[url]http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=+site%3Ausenet.org.uk+forum[/url]

Shows 66 occurances of people refering to newsgroups as forums, all
hosted at usenet.org.uk. (might not be 66 unique occurances)

So I guess people do refer to them as forums.

Shall we petition for these references to be removed/"fixed"?

"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:46166018.0@entanet

[snip]
[color=blue]
>
> [url]http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=+site%3Ausenet.org.uk+forum[/url]
>
> Shows 66 occurances of people refering to newsgroups as
> forums, all hosted at usenet.org.uk. (might not be 66
> unique occurances)
> So I guess people do refer to them as forums.
>
> Shall we petition for these references to be
> removed/"fixed"?[/color]

66. Is that all..? Given the number of groups that exist and the number of
people that use them, it's barely a drop in the ocean. Not worth bothering
with.

If you'd said 66,000 I would have taken notice.

Case closed, I think.


Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:[color=blue]
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:46166018.0@entanet
>
> [snip]
>[color=green]
>> [url]http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=+site%3Ausenet.org.uk+forum[/url]
>>
>> Shows 66 occurances of people refering to newsgroups as
>> forums, all hosted at usenet.org.uk. (might not be 66
>> unique occurances)
>> So I guess people do refer to them as forums.
>>
>> Shall we petition for these references to be
>> removed/"fixed"?[/color]
>
> 66. Is that all..? Given the number of groups that exist and the number of
> people that use them, it's barely a drop in the ocean. Not worth bothering
> with.
>
> If you'd said 66,000 I would have taken notice.
>
> Case closed, I think.[/color]

You said "Or someone would have done so by now, given the time Usenet
has existed.". Someone has.

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:49:28 +0100, SteveC wrote:

[color=blue]
>Thanks again to everyone for your help, including Ivor, who I know I
>wound up above!!!!! - butI know he hates spam on the forum, i just
>couldn't help it... sorry!![/color]

There is no need to say sorry to that pillock .

On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:44:47 +0100, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Ivor Jones wrote:[color=green]
>> There's only one thing I hate more than spam and that's people calling a
>> newsgroup a forum.[/color]
>
>Give it a rest, Ivor.[/color]
Rather than Yawn I can see I am going to have to start posting FORUM
of which THIS is one of course Paul if he does not like it he can sod
off end of story .

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 00:19:45 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
>"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:46140058.0@entanet[color=green]
>> Ivor Jones wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > There's only one thing I hate more than spam and that's
>> > people calling a newsgroup a forum.[/color]
>>
>> Give it a rest, Ivor.[/color]
>
>No.
>
>Besides, nobody else has complained, not even Ron, for once.
>
>Even the person who made the comment accepted my reply with good grace.
>
>Why did you have to spoil it..? I expected better from you, Paul.
>
>Ivor
>[/color]
Slowly but surly even the best of people are geting very tired of you
going on and on about stuff that just does not matter.

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 16:29:20 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

[color=blue]
>66. Is that all..? Given the number of groups that exist and the number of
>people that use them, it's barely a drop in the ocean. Not worth bothering
>with.[/color]

In tha case why do YOU go on and on about it .

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 15:04:15 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

[color=blue][color=green]
>> You want the last word?[/color]
>
>Not particularly,[/color]

Course you do don't lie but you will not get it with me .

"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:46166857.0@entanet[color=blue]
> Ivor Jones wrote:[color=green]
> > "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:46166018.0@entanet
> >
> > [snip]
> >[color=darkred]
> > > [url]http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=+site%3Ausenet.org.uk+forum[/url]
> > >
> > > Shows 66 occurances of people refering to newsgroups
> > > as forums, all hosted at usenet.org.uk. (might not be
> > > 66 unique occurances)
> > > So I guess people do refer to them as forums.
> > >
> > > Shall we petition for these references to be
> > > removed/"fixed"?[/color]
> >
> > 66. Is that all..? Given the number of groups that
> > exist and the number of people that use them, it's
> > barely a drop in the ocean. Not worth bothering with.
> >
> > If you'd said 66,000 I would have taken notice.
> >
> > Case closed, I think.[/color]
>
> You said "Or someone would have done so by now, given the
> time Usenet has existed.". Someone has.[/color]

But hardly a representative figure. My case rests.

Ivor

<clavox@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:vrdd13pjd1n6kthh52i0f65lip3cslsbt5@4ax.com[color=blue]
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 16:29:20 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
> > 66. Is that all..? Given the number of groups that
> > exist and the number of people that use them, it's
> > barely a drop in the ocean. Not worth bothering with.[/color]
>
> In tha case why do YOU go on and on about it .[/color]

Tha case..? Is that a northern accent..?

Ivor